should the perfect actress. she was enormously popular. she was a very hard worker. she was a loving mother. and that her sons grow up and win in the army and the navy, and then the royal family suddenly realized that they needed more errors -- nobody was to take over the throne. his daughter died, and william the fourth row mike -- was a bastard so they wouldn't do. so he was made to marry. all the sons and daughters were married off to german princesses and dukes. but the legitimate children died and was only the duke of york, is one daughter, victoria who survived to take over the throne. mrs. jordan was cast aside, very
rich. she ended her days in paris alone. but her story is a really wonderful story and she's a great character. so i enjoyed doing that. as you can tell i'm a feminist to the heart. and so i did like writing about women like that who were being somehow denigrated or forgotten or misrepresented. and that's very important to me. >> claire tomalin, what's your current project? >> i'm having rest your i spent the whole of lester going around lecturing about dickens and i knew to regroup i think. >> any ideas? >> i would like to go back to writing with a woman as the central character, but it's a
very crowded field now and it's very difficult to find a subject that hasn't been written about so probably i have to find someone quite obscure. >> this is booktv on c-span2 and we've been talking with claire tomalin, author in london. >> for more information on these and other entities from london visit booktv.org and watch booktv every sunday at 6 p.m. eastern over the next several weeks for more. >> next, christopher wolf, co-author of "viral hate" discusses attacks on racial, ethnic, and religious minorities on the internet and what can be done about it. he argues that creating new laws to limit speech is not the answer and says that responsible citizens need to take action to limit the level of hate found
online. he spoke a politics and prose in washington, d.c. >> bradley, thank you very much and good evening. i do send abrahams apologies. he was detained in new york and has empowered me to speak on his behalf. most of us went to school at time when we heard the same sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me. tell that to the holocaust museum guard who was murdered by a neo-nazi whose evil violent dilution for kept alive in this online community. tell that to the women who live in fear of being raped because of misogynistic online threats that they see all the time. tell that to the cyber bully kids who stay home from school because they are traumatized by the taunts they receive anonymously online, and tell that to tyler clemente, who was
director student who committed suicide because of a tweet that ridiculed him for being gay. that old sticks and stones saying is simply not true. in the world of websites, twitter, youtube and facebook. in fact, in the online world, words and pictures and videos and online games are infecting the globe with a virus of hate that is a threat to people, and to society. abe foxman and i wrote "viral hate: containing its spread on the internet" because hate filled, the meaning them degrading and potentially violence inspiring content are not the necessary byproduct of freedom of expression. we believe freedom of expression as important as it is, and it is, does not trump human dignity. we wrote our book because we believe people should not sit idly by when they see online attacks on people because they are different. the anti-defamation league, the 100 year-old institution where
abe is national director and where i chair the national civil rights committee, has a mission. to stop the defamation of the jewish people and to promote justice and fair treatment for all. as part of this mission, the anti-defamation league has worked for years on an epidemic of online hate that without question that's harming individuals and society. while certain aspects of internet hate have received national and international attention like cyberbullying, unfortunately the problem in general is not high in the consciousness of the internet community, parents and educators, and of leaders. and we believe that the indifference toward growing and harmful problem needs to change. we care about these issues not just because we're civil rights activist and it seemed the effect of attack physical and verbal on minority, but this is also personal.
aid is a holocaust survivor and this from the place and time where propaganda was the accomplice to the deaths of millions. as abe explained, the holocaust didn't begin with the of and. it begins with words. at the fourth global forum on anti-semitism in jerusalem last month, abe and i both explained that the virus of hate is spreading every day in ways that his latest propaganda experts never could have imagined. abe has been a towering figure in the fight against anti-semitism and hate for decades was involved in fighting online hate is a natural. and i am now an openly gay man, happily married, my husband is in the audience, but growing up i endured the other test and degrading comments that were widely socially acceptable. hate speech on in it covers a wide range of things and as we explain in the book the internet has become an organizing and communications tool for extremists on the right and on the left.
before the internet such people would meet down dark alleys and exchange their propaganda in plain brown wrappers. and now with the push of a button, click of a mouse, they reach billions in seconds. sociologists that we quote have concluded that online hate give some people a sense that violence is not only possible for somebody to commit, but it's logical. online communities and the proliferation of online hate -- hate says to them, you're not crazy, you're right. at the other end of the spectrum but also disturbing are the anti-semitic racist homophobic and other hate filled rants, some see and comment sections to mainstream news sites. often posted anonymously. during the affair -- the madoff affair, the anti-semitic comments about jews and money for rent and. earlier this week i was on cnn
and cnn posted a clip of my parents on youtube and the comments to that appearance, kind of proves our point. for most of us, hate speech is the equivalent, or close, it's online solution. but it's common and ubiquitous appearance gives some the impression that the opinions expressed mostly mainstream and acceptable. and we are especially worried about the impact of that on global children here from what we call quote websites, the one that purports to provide historical information on dr. martin luther king but, in fact, contains racist lies to online game celebrating attacks on minorities and, of course, including cyberbullying, kids are at risk because of online hate. affordable children believe what they read. and they are misled, or worse. they are carefully taught to hate in the words of the famous south pacific song. also disturbing is that many people react to the common
appearance of online hate by treating it as the norm. so in "viral hate," abe and i do not just show how bad things are on the internet. we don't stop there. we tr tried to explain how eachf us can do something, to stand up against internet hate. and our action plan is in our book. what we don't advocate, and this may be surprising coming from a lawyer, what we don't advocate is the use of the law to regulate speech. and that's not just because the first amendment here in the united states puts limits on the regulation of speech. but we have found that even where laws are available to control speech, they are largely ineffective and often counterproductive. we understand how in places like germany it is literally unspeakable to deny the holocaust that resulted in the murder of millions, and the important statement that the holocaust loss of their play but as a tool to make a difference, the appearance of hate speech, it just doesn't work.
in fact, as we explain in the book, enforcement of laws against hate speech often make the defendant martyrs among their followers who can celebrate and republish the material all over the internet, often from the base of the united states with the first amendment permits it. moreover, the law can't deal with the scale of internet hate. i describe it as like cockroaches in the kitchen, not that we have been in our -- house, but we might be able to target and take it one on the kitchen counter but there are many more behind the wall that will be unaffected by isolator targeting. the same is true with internet hate. consider these statistics. every minute on the internet there are 550 new websites. the are almost 300,000 weeks every minute. there are 42000 they spoke shares, and over 600 hours of youtube video are added online to the internet every minute.
if scale is overwhelming. so when the british police recently stepped up a resting isolated individuals who made anti-muslim statements under the uk so-called malicious communications law, it really didn't have much of an effect. we're against anti-muslim statements but all that kind of effort will do is address a mere handful of comments, and it will chill legitimate dissent while driving haters to other outlets where they will be less identifiable. critical reach reads -- re-tweet we think are much more effective. while the uk's use of the law may only be objectionable, repressive regimes like china and iran take comfort and justification for the use of law and democracy to regulate online speech. so the law is not available or appropriate or effective, what can be done? again, some people simply shrug off online hate as the influence
of internet freedom and rationalize it, given the statistics i just read come as a problem too big to address. the problem of scale, the sheer volume of internet content in our view is no excuse for not trying to do with online hate. when viruses causing disease spread, society responds even when the scale of the problem is daunting. and likewise can we think the virus of hate requires a broad response. counter speech, the disinfectant of sunlight is a powerful tool. you may recall that during last weekend made a coalition of women's advocates mounted a campaign against facebook and advertisers on facebook to protest the appearance of dreadful misogynistic content, pictures of beaten and bound women, called for raping women, the grating slogans against women masquerading as human and other grossly offensive content. that campaign prompted facebook immediately to admit that he
needed to do more under its terms of service prohibiting hate speech, to please the anti-women and violence inspiring content, and facebook committed to do more. to the women bring issues to facebook in the world's attention were not simply willing to accept online misogyny as the norm. when anything was established on facebook called kill a jew day, even before facebook took it down, i counter group called 1 million strong against kill a jew day, was out. look at the people speaking up on twitter by re-tweeting the rants of others with critical commentary. at a minimum, we think online content, web hosted social media companies should have clear terms of service prohibiting hate speech and they should have staff and procedures in place to enforce those terms of service when complaints about online hate are brought to their attention. care should be taken to allow free expression, but when
content crosses the line, it should come down. if this is not a first amendment issue. the government is not involved. the hosts have their own first amendment right to publish what they choose. and if they want a more civil corner of the internet, and we hope they do, that is their right. ended host like facebook and google have joined with the interparliamentary coalition for combating anti-semitism task force that i co-chair and with the anti-defamation league and the working group includes civil rights experts and ongoing collaboration on ways to reduce hate speech. our work continues today. terms of service and their enforcement, tools for counter speech is an antidote to hate speech and education are the core focus of this working group. so we applaud those internet hosts and the attention they are paying to the problem. has facebook admitted, it will do more and facebook has been a leader here by the way, and more from the internet committee generally, especially the companies that host hate filled
content as needed. for starters, the companies need to learn why some content is potent like holocaust denial is indeed hate speech and the need to put adequate resources in place to respond to complaints about the presence of hate filled posts, and to take down this post probably. they can promote and publish and they can help with cyber literacy and anti-hate education. more is needed for parents and educators. teaching kids about cyber literacy and online civility is a start, and i'm sorry to tell you that we do a woefully bad job of that in this country. as demonstrated by the women pushing facebook to change, people who use the internet need to speak up when you see online hate. when you see something, say something is not a slogan that is restricted to backpacks and airports. we have a duty to speak out against online hate, and abe and i think that the warning from the pre-internet era still
applies. the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. thank you very much. [applause] >> and i will be happy to take your questions and i will try to channel abe foxman when again. actually, if you could use the microphone, please. >> i was wondering when you were discussing facebook and all of that, is there a specific problem when much of this originates outside of the united states, and a lot of it, i think, are just websites that are not necessarily coming through facebook? so how do you deal with something like that? >> when we first started looking at this problem our focus was on websites, and we promoted a filter that would identify the sites, even though there are 400, 500 new websites posted to the internet everyday, and compare that to the of the statisticstatistic s i read about the tweets and facebook
postings. social media is whether that come and its were most people going and using to publish. if you ask most people to go to an internet host and get them to host a website and get a developer to great your website, i don't think you would find as much uptake. so our focus has changed, not that we're not worried about that, and our websites that really are terribly concerned, like the martin luther king website and the websites of established hate groups, let frankly they are more identifiable. typically we can track them down in places outside the united states. so they can use the law to go after that handful of content. other questions? sir, to want to come to the mic? >> this is perhaps hard to measure but do you think it's ia more hate now than it was long ago or just, it's just easier to
spread? is all the stuff on the website generating hate? has the hate always been there? is there any thoughts on that? >> we cite a few of the sociologist, and we are not sociologists, the obvious thing the internet plays a big role in stirring up hate, that already exist. eight has been with us for millennia, anti-semitism has been around since year one. so hate has always been with us but now have a tool that allows people to spread it and make it appear more acceptable, and it is something about the medium. medium. look, we'll probably see it in e-mails we get from her coworkers and our family. there's something about the harsh word of e-mails and text that is different than a face-to-face encounter we have to engage with someone. so that separation and use of technology does seem to promote intemperate hateful comment and we find people who say some really horrible things in the
comments section to news stories that i mentioned, often they are your friends and neighbors but they're hiding behind a mask of anonymity and they feel empowered to vent in the way that they do. >> do you think there should be greater efforts to eliminate anonymity? should websites or google sites or such, facebook, not allow anonymous quotes? >> facebook doesn't allow anonymous the -- anonymity. what they do have though is a section where you can post things and not usual real name, and the way they dealt with that, there was a recent and frank meeting that wasn't funny at all what was intended to be, and they went to the host of that, the moderator and said, we'd like you to identify you or we will take them to we would like to stand behind what you posted and person who did that
said, never mind. go ahead and take it down. i think and 95% of the cases that is so. anonymity on the internet is an encoded important tool for free expressions. think about th that the teenager was not quite sure about things and doing research. his anonymity is really important. answered has to be a balance. "the new york times" struck an interesting balance. they give priority to people who use the registered name for comments, news stories, and people who want to have comments anonymous, go down, down the queue and probably don't get r rid. >> as a former journalist myself i was to delete sensitive, certainly aware of these online comments, sections that have sprung up on these media websites alongside articles that are written.
there is a very well-intentioned purpose, to promote discussion of the news and of articles, but all too often these sections have become venues preventing a lot of these hateful sentiments, and often the comments have nothing to do with the article that is being cited. i just wonder how much attention you pay to them, how problematic you see these are, whether you think media organizations are doing enough to police these comment sections? >> they are given the resources that are available. newspapers are in pretty tough financial shape and they can't afford of the moderators they would like to have. to moderate those comments and that's what it's up to us to point out your fellow commenters that their comments are not germane or they are not nice or common to many people slough them off and there are tools available even something as simple as flagging something for
attention can play a role. but i also think that the online host can do more to promote civility by being really up front about it. so a great example, we went to google from the anti-defamation league server years ago because if you put in a search term and you can't we talk with a simple, one of the first sites that came up, the search result was jew watch. and we went to google and said hey, this isn't right. this isn't what people want to see. and google said i think it probably, look, the algorithm that produces the result of we cannot change it. here's what we will do. we'll put a pretty sponsored link next to the search result this is a search result you're looking at is hate speech but did want to learn about hate speech here's a link to the adl. so i think the online host including newspapers can provide counter speech or the opportunity for counter speech. and, of course, of the commenters can respond just as easily as the people posting the
intemperate comment. other questions? >> i just found out last week that the sponsors of internet sites are immune from liability on unlike newspapers and so forth. that's the law. i know you said you were interested in legal solutions, but this is like chicken soup, couldn't hurt, making them responsible for what they put online? >> in 1996, the communications decency act was passed and it included a provision, i think it was the result of lobbying from aol at the time, to a nice online host for the content of their users. and without that provision we would have never had youtube, we never would have facebook or twitter. it allows for this material to
appear without potential liability, and enormous staff that would be required for the normal vetting that would be required as it occurs in newspapers. so i think section 230 is an enormous tool toward free expression. something it's been expanded to broadly, and, in fact, the national association of attorneys general is being planned right now by the maryland attorney general at their summit meeting next monday, is having a panel of which i'm appearing to discuss whether it's time to rethink section 230 and impose some liability on the intermediaries. i don't think that's such a good day and i've our time think about how you would restructure it. they do have liability for copyright infringement and purely legal content. but for libel or hate speech it would be hard to see how you do that, maybe i'll be educated when i go to the panel. but there are even proposals that spread that immunity around
the world as part of trade trade negotiations. i think the trend is a much in favor of granting the immunity, but part of the privilege i think the intermediaries enjoyed is to take voluntary action as many of them are doing, in our working group. and so we hope they understand if they don't do that kind of voluntary think they may be subject to more calls for removal of their immunity. >> from what you say, one of the most important tools you think that could be utilized by companies like facebook and google and so on reflate to the terms of usage or the other things that they require their subscribers to adhere to, and those literally are contracts of vacation. no way to use a legal term, they are in no way anything that even a large user can negotiate. there may be some ability in formulating them for other groups like civil libertarians
are advertisers or others to have some input. but basically, there's a simple something that are imposed, and i have noticed that you really have given a number of very, i shouldn't say obvious, but very significant examples of the kind of speech which i think virtually everyone would agree falls into the category of hate speech. but in formulating anything to be put into the contract, i would think, and i would ask if you would agree, they would have to be a much more precise and clear definition of what hate speech is or what kind of speech is, what activity is prohibited. and i wonder if you could just at least in general terms address that day on, you know, the types of examples you've given. >> sure, the adl just released yesterday if you go to adl.org a
cyber hit response kit which has the hate speech policies of all the major online services. and what you'll find is there's an enormous similarly, even though they may be unilaterally impose, the definition of hate speech is pretty similar and its speech that attacks people because of their status as a minority or perceived status as a minority. and where the tough part comes in is not in the drafting of it really compete in the application. that's why we have this working group that has free speech advocates like jeff rosen and the president of the center for democracy and technology, leslie harris, as well as civil rights advocates and representatives of the online companies, trying to work out what is acceptable, what are the acceptable parameters. because sometimes at the margins it's hard to define hate speech. yes, ma'am. >> do you think that the rise of talk radio, conservative talk
radio which is somewhat predates web usage do you think that has been the factor encouraging the growth of hate speech and perhaps continuing to spur it on? >> i think their separation with radio and broadcast, too, and a lot of the things said are intemperate and really promote this culture of extreme thought, and to that extent it's not a good thing. >> i would like to argue that the spirit of debate in this country is all but dead. coming from another society where you heard debate, where people were face-to-face, come up or stand up and speak to somebody and get an answer. i think if you suppress all
that, if you put barriers in. i mean, one of the initial barriers may be a newspaper. then you have screening with all the technology that goes behind the screen, that to me puts a damper on all healthy debate. when i want to say something to the president, at the risk of sounding ridiculous, i mean, and many politicians in this country, you cannot get anywhere near these people unless it happens to be a week that mr. jones is speaking in new mexico, whatever. the politicians of our nation, they have forgotten what debate is, not forgotten but they don't seem to recognize what it is but and i think it's all logged -- large reason why so much is broken down. thanks. >> thank you for the comments. yes, ma'am. >> this may not be something
that you talk about in your book, but okay, you seem to be talking mostly exclusively about viral hate on the web, the internet. what happens, you know, could you comment on what happens if this happens face-to-face? i've had this happen face-to-face and am wondering if you could address that? >> at least when it is face-to-face you know who is saying it to you and people are taking a degree of responsibility for saying it to you face-to-face. one of the things the adl did some time ago was get passed in georgia and anti-mask law that if you're going to march through the streets of a town to promote, to protest integration, you need to take responsibility for that message. you couldn't terrorize people with masks on. >> i was told i can't say anything because of the company and all that sort of stuff.
>> i think it's all part of the general stability in society, or incivility in society, and which hate on the internet is part, and discourtesy on the internet is part as well. i think it's sort of a continual. but we take your point. >> how are you doing? >> i'm well. >> what i wanted to ask a question was about kids. kids are intimidated. they are intimidated in all aspects. so could you address speed is as i said at the beginning, happily to the extent we're paying attention to, cyberbullying has received a lot of attention. the family online safety institute did a family -- fabless job. adl has drafted anti-cyber loan-loss. so that's what they wear think it has been a degree of attention. more can be done.
when we talk in a book about kids, we talk about providing cyber letters to education. there was a point where parents thought it was cute decades knew more about the internet than they did and we referred to them as digital natives and we're digital immigrants. we don't speak the language quite as well. that's a copout but it really is. we would never send our kids into bad neighborhoods without some guidance. we wouldn't let him go into the bad neighborhoods but we let them do that all the time online. and i was with someone from the department of education recently who confirmed that there's virtually no federal funding for cyber literacy education, and very few states authorize it much less funded. if they do, it's one or two segments of the education, rather than a continuing education that will teach them, first of all, what they say and do online can affect them for the rest of their lives. they can affect what schools they get into. what jobs they did.
it reminds me of the movie, defending your life whether the videotape of their lives when they got into heaven which freaked out brooks. meryl streep was fine with it. but that's basically what the internet is coming for kids. they need to know at least that, but they also need to know the things we've been talking about tonight, that what they seem to connect impact on people, including reading people to suicide. and can turn themselves into haters. they can become people that they really probably don't want to be, and their parents don't want them to be. we hope this will inspire further discussion about cyber letters he education. >> i haven't read the book yet. >> father's day is coming. >> you mentioned something about society. got me thinking. is that an assumption here that everyone you want to talk to, you know, believes in society? because one of the things, i
seem to see is that their people who decide that they do not want to be part of society and they deliver the set themselves apart from what we would consider norms even at extreme, and they just don't care? i mean, you know, some people would call it evil. some people call it anarchy. so how does what you are proposing deal with that? >> a lot of the people are the people who end up being identified as the perpetrator of some pretty terrible acts that would read about and hear about on tv. they said they were a loner, they had an online community and that was basically it. if all they have is online community, if it's a better online community -- [inaudible] >> they want to destroy what exists. >> that's an overly ambitious goal on our part if we think we can eliminate that, but maybe this will contribute to
attracting people to a more civil discourse and lifestyle. >> i know that you and abe foxman our good friends come and i just wanted how you decided, whose idea was it to write this book, and do you have any good stories but sitting around together, talking about, you know, i know he is so much to offer and so do you comment and just -- >> itel in the book that abe has enormous talent, but being an early adopter is not one of them. he keeps referring to it as a blueberry instead of a blackberry and things like that. [laughter] as a civil rights leader he has understood since 1986 the adl published a report called bulletin boards of hate where you put the phone into cradle. so he has understood and has the foresight to devote the resources of late to this issue. i had the honor of being passed back in 1995 to lead our efforts, which i've done up until now.
when i became national civil rights chair. so it was his idea to do the book. he recruited me. i was honored he would share the by line with me. and it was the typical collaborative effort to we yelled at each other a lot and we agreed a lot, and we were really proud with what turned out. we recount in the book that in 1995, the adl met in chicago on the day that yitzhak rabin was assessing. i was at the podium when someone passed a note to abe and he got up and announced it. being cool i thought i would find out the latest news online for god the jerusalem post which had yesterday's newspaper with a little line at the top, and yitzhak rabin shot at a relative but how is it for hours and hours and hours. there was like no news.
last november we were in chicago again for the 100th anniversary of the adl when the attacks from gaza on issue. so many of them you may not remember this one but the attacks in gaza. ended everybody went to the blackberries, or the blueberries, or the ipads and we immediately have access. a lot has changed between 1995 and 2013. what happened at the adl is when a large staff that is with us. we have people whose very job it is come and thank god for this, they are devoted to this mission, they monitor the internet all the time, 24 subject or as jim would say 24/six in a jewish organization. [laughter] it's not, it's like the people who monitor kiddie porn. so they've got computers and they keep track to this extent they can of the major stuff going on. so the adl really is a leader in this effort and it's a great honor to be part of it.
>> i'm an artist and i've seen some artworks which, when they go after politicians on either side of the aisle or religion, i would call it hate speech but it's not speech. it's an image. do you have any comment about images? >> images can absolutely confident -- constitute hate speech. drawing lines between content doesn't make a lot of sense to me. facebook as a policy vacuum is excluded from its hate speech posted but if you dress something up like hate speech, that's exempt. that's not right. nor should our to be exempt it could be hateful. these politicians, they are in a special category where they're expected to take it a little bit more. it's interesting to compare our society with others but in britain there was a town council that actually filed suit, surface of ginkgo got it perfected in superior court in california to identify someone who tweeted something of
business to the politicians on the town council. if anybody tried to do that here you would laugh at them. that's acceptable. in britain they have these speech codes that even politicians are immune from criticism. here, i think criticism of politicians is our national sport. any other questions? speed and this is a pretty ill formed font, but i'm just taking your ideas and wondering if want to comment on how they would be extrapolated into a world where large portion of us may be wearing google last. i was in silicon valley last week and i were my first pair -- >> how was that? >> surprisingly easy. i was expecting it to be extremely distracting and it was very light weight and probably easier to learn to use than bifocals. and surprisingly convenient. but i'm just wondering how that
may play out if we really do get to the point where we are wearing the internet and we are wearing videocameras, and it's alarming to think of just how easy it is. i had to say is turn on video very quietly and -- >> if you by viral hate volume two -- [laughter] that's where we talk about that. that's any internet of things when your refrigerator starts cursing at you, right? yes, ma'am. >> since that richard -- that wretched fellow that pickets military -- >> the baptist church. spent i don't even -- gladly forgetting that fellow's name. anyway, legal within certain boundaries -- >> so says the supreme court, yes. >> so i'm wondering if, in general, how you would feel
about all these fuzzy lines that are so dreadful and right at the age to so many of us, have the fuzzy lines gotten fuzzier? has it changed? hasn't moved in terms of all of this? >> so, whatever you might think of the supreme court case that said that phelps and the westboro baptist church could protest funerals of servicemen by making anti-gay statements because of some contorted logic that there was some connection between the military deaths and society that permits gay people, the supreme court said that that was not speech that is punishable in a civil action to i think the supreme court would allow a certain separation, a time, place and manner. we are taught about laws that regulate speech. i don't think you would see it upheld. and congress has tried, children's online protection act
was struck down and another example, communities decency act in which section 230 is a parka was struck down except for section 230 because it's almost impossible to craft a law that gets at the bad speech without also sweeping in the speech and making that inaccessible. that's the price we pay for a society that values free expression. and i talked about counter speech. we need to have people speaking up against the westboro baptist church is on the world. as you are. >> in the context of supporting israel, and there were harboring this angst on the metro, anti-muslim ads and a number of us were standing there with a response to it and other groups went along and other cities did things with it. so there are pockets of people but they can't be there 24/7. >> right. there are anti-israel adds we
are responded to the sides of buses is probably not a great place to have a political debate. but the transit authorities are making the decisions about that in lots of different cities. other questions? >> all right. i think we are ready to sell some books. [applause] >> early on we said we have this link and where to put something on or maybe not. it was just an open-ended what do we do with it, right? everyone wanted to say. so they quickly people, which promise a public process to receive public input, to generate a master plan. at the same time that i was going on, like i said before you at larry, developer, you had a port authority and they replayed in the importance of the
commercial space that was destroyed but they wanted to make sure that lower manhattan remained an international financial. they believed in order for it to remain, they had to rebuild all of the commercial space. spent with controversy or the rebuilt on the site of the world trade center, elizabeth greenspan on the battle for ground zero tonight at nine on afterwards part of booktv this weekend on c-span2. >> when you write a book, a lot can go wrong. that's just sort of the way i approach the world. i'm somewhat erotic in my writing, reporting and a lot can go wrong with 110,000 words. i've been pretty shocked by, i guess if there's been criticism from inside, it's been mostly in the vein of how dare he, meaning how dare an insider give away the secret handshake. how dare an insider talk about other insiders in a way that perhaps might not be done in
keeping with accounts that we have in washington. and people keep asking me why the people uncomfortable here. and i welcome discomfort i also think it's journalism. this is what we do and we should invite this comfort. >> booktv's book club returns next week with mark leibovich's "this town." look for david bookclub oppose starting september 3 to get the conversation going including discussion questions, links to interviews of the author from reviews of the book and video of the author from our booktv archive. >> next, from the annual publishing industry tradeshow, book expo america. a panel discussion on the future of the publishing industry. it's 45 minutes. >> hello everybody. i'm the director for the center for publishing at new york university and thanks so much